|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head.
Who is holding the gun in the analogy?
|
A majority of Texas voters support marijuana legalization, according to a recent survey.
Public Policy Polling found that 58 percent of Texans "support making marijuana legal for adults and regulating it like alcohol." Even more -- 61 percent -- were in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession and instead punishing violations with a civil citation.
Texas law currently views possession of marijuana, even on a minute scale, as a criminal offense, punishable by $2,000 in fines and up to a year of jail time.
The PPP survey of 860 randomly selected Texas voters was released by the Marijuana Policy Project.
"Most Texans agree that marijuana sales should be conducted by legitimate businesses instead of drug cartels in the underground market," MPP executive director Rob Kampia said in a release.
In addition, the poll found that a majority of Texas voters support changing state law to permit critically ill and terminal patients to use medical marijuana -- only 31 percent said they were opposed.
"People suffering from cancer and multiple sclerosis should not face the threat of arrest for using medical marijuana if their doctors believe it will help ease their suffering," Kampia said.
Source
|
On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will.
Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy?
Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns 
Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes.
Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding.
|
On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote?
Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote?
Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns
Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding.
These false narratives don't help.
Democrats are open to IMPROVING the ACA but Republicans want nothing less than to dismantle it in whatever way they can.
Also, they have been more than willing to take Republican input through the whole process, thats the only reason it is the law it is. If it had been up to Democrats to get what they wanted it would look radically different.
What is happening is that Republicans are holding the country hostage unless their demands to undermine and dismantle the ACA are met.
If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding.
|
On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding.
I keep seeing this line come from liberal posters. I gotta ask:
What exactly have democrats folded on since Obama took office? Where have they compromised with republicans?
And for all of the reasons previously discussed, don't say Obamacare. By definition you haven't compromised with the other party when you pass legislation without a single vote of theirs.
|
On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote?
Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote?
Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. This is just wrong. More like "If Dems dont'give in and modify the ACA the Republicans who staked it all on defeating ACA look not only crazy but also weak", and the GOP splinters into the TeaParty-Evengalical hardcore alliance, safe in its gerrymandered districts but never a threat to capture the Senate or the WH and a moderate Republican Party that actually has to win elections vs. Democrats, wants to put people in competitive Senate seats and some hope of winning the presidency.
|
On October 09 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding. I keep seeing this line come from liberal posters. I gotta ask: What exactly have democrats folded on since Obama took office? Where have they compromised with republicans? And for all of the reasons previously discussed, don't say Obamacare. By definition you haven't compromised with the other party when you pass legislation without a single vote of theirs.
Bush tax cuts, national security state, free trade, attempts to create a 'grand bargain' on things that didnt need fixing in 2010 like social security and medicare spending, a defense budget at 800 billion dollars and yes. Obamacare. The fact that you dont want to acknowledge that a real democrat health care law would have a single payer system makes sense only in a world where "Obama is the most uncompromising president in American history' .
|
On October 09 2013 06:36 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. This is just wrong. More like "If Dems dont'give in and modify the ACA the Republicans who staked it all on defeating ACA look not only crazy but also weak", and the GOP splinters into the TeaParty-Evengalical hardcore alliance, safe in its gerrymandered districts but never a threat to capture the Senate or the WH and a moderate Republican Party that actually has to win elections vs. Democrats, wants to put people in competitive Senate seats and some hope of winning the presidency.
Except that without the "TeaParty-Evengalical hardcore alliance" as you call it the Republicans cannot win anymore because they now lack there votes. There is a reason the parties are as they are and the Republican leadership is forced to accept the tea party in there mids.
That oh so beautiful 2 party system
|
On October 09 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding. Edit: For clarification I was not just referring to Obama era Dems I keep seeing this line come from liberal posters. I gotta ask: What exactly have democrats folded on since Obama took office? Where have they compromised with republicans? And for all of the reasons previously discussed, don't say Obamacare. By definition you haven't compromised with the other party when you pass legislation without a single vote of theirs.
Sub 40 Nailed some, but there are plenty more. Since you are a lawyer I know you are too smart to actually believe that Obama has had free reign to pass legislation as he and the Democrats want.
Many of the concessions in the ACA were to implement republican solutions, it's not his fault Republicans refuse to take yes for answer.
I really don't think many if any informed non-Republicans think for a second that Obama has not bent over backwards to appease a party who has held up everything he has tried to get accomplished. All before this they would hold up nominations then scream about how the Agency hasn't been getting things done. (Elizabeth Warren comes to mind)
It's totally asinine to assert Republicans have done anything but undermine and resist Obama on everything with no intent to vote for anything less than exactly what they would of put on Mitt Romney's desk had America ACTUALLY decided to go their direction.
Every single piece of legislation Obama has passed has been with some form of concession to the Republican agenda.
At this point I can't take seriously arguments predicated on the notion that Republicans "want" to "compromise/negotiate" in any sensible meaning of the words.
I sincerely don't think people who make them are either acknowledging reality or aware of it.
|
On October 09 2013 06:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding. I keep seeing this line come from liberal posters. I gotta ask: What exactly have democrats folded on since Obama took office? Where have they compromised with republicans? And for all of the reasons previously discussed, don't say Obamacare. By definition you haven't compromised with the other party when you pass legislation without a single vote of theirs. Bush tax cuts, national security state, free trade, attempts to create a 'grand bargain' on things that didnt need fixing in 2010 like social security and medicare spending, a defense budget at 800 billion dollars and yes. Obamacare. The fact that you dont want to acknowledge that a real democrat health care law would have a single payer system makes sense only in a world where "Obama is the most uncompromising president in American history' .
Let's look at some of these:
Bush tax cuts: How is this a cave? Democrats got what they wanted by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and then reinstituting tax cuts for the lower brackets.
National Security State: This isn't exactly a democrats vs republican issue.
"Grand Bargain": I don't even know where to begin with this. First, there was no deal, so by definition, that means that there was no caving. And you are crazy if you think that Medicare and Social Security don't need fixing. Sure, they're not going bankrupt "tomorrow," but the writing is on the wall. Fixing now will be cheaper than delaying.
Defense Budget: Democrats have been fairly committed to fighting the war on terror and wrapping up Afghanistan. You can't do that without a military. This isn't strictly a republican vs democrat issue.
Obamacare: It takes some truly impressive intellectual dishonesty to call Obamacare a cave to republicans. Let me repeat: It was passed without a single republican vote. The inescapable truth about Obamacare is that it was the most that democrats could pass within their own party, and only after some serious arm-twisting. To the extent that democrats "caved," they caved to themselves.
Indeed, what you are really complaining about is this: liberal democrats caving to moderate democrats. Not every member of the democrat party is on the far left like you are.
|
Bush tax cuts had a concession of 400k for the top tax bracket instead of 250k.
|
On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns
Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. These false narratives don't help. Democrats are open to IMPROVING the ACA but Republicans want nothing less than to dismantle it in whatever way they can. Also, they have been more than willing to take Republican input through the whole process, thats the only reason it is the law it is. If it had been up to Democrats to get what they wanted it would look radically different. What is happening is that Republicans are holding the country hostage unless their demands to undermine and dismantle the ACA are met. If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding.
Yeah, OK, Dems are open to changing the ACA however they want. That's obviously not the point I was making. They aren't willing to change the ACA in a way that Reps are asking for.
And Dems aren't playing hardball, they're throwing whatever they can at the Reps in hopes that their precious ACA won't be touched or undermined by anyone but Obama. It's the same "strategy" they used in drafting the ACA. Throw in a bunch of random things you figure the other side will want, call it a compromise and watch as you get nothing in return.
|
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is.
|
On October 09 2013 06:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:36 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check.
This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. This is just wrong. More like "If Dems dont'give in and modify the ACA the Republicans who staked it all on defeating ACA look not only crazy but also weak", and the GOP splinters into the TeaParty-Evengalical hardcore alliance, safe in its gerrymandered districts but never a threat to capture the Senate or the WH and a moderate Republican Party that actually has to win elections vs. Democrats, wants to put people in competitive Senate seats and some hope of winning the presidency. Except that without the "TeaParty-Evengalical hardcore alliance" as you call it the Republicans cannot win anymore because they now lack there votes. There is a reason the parties are as they are and the Republican leadership is forced to accept the tea party in there mids. That oh so beautiful 2 party system
They cant with them either, only the 2010 gerrymandering has kept the House of Reps Republican. The question for the moderate Republicans is whether they want to be in Congress at all or vacate their seats to Democrats.
|
On October 09 2013 07:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:40 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding. I keep seeing this line come from liberal posters. I gotta ask: What exactly have democrats folded on since Obama took office? Where have they compromised with republicans? And for all of the reasons previously discussed, don't say Obamacare. By definition you haven't compromised with the other party when you pass legislation without a single vote of theirs. Bush tax cuts, national security state, free trade, attempts to create a 'grand bargain' on things that didnt need fixing in 2010 like social security and medicare spending, a defense budget at 800 billion dollars and yes. Obamacare. The fact that you dont want to acknowledge that a real democrat health care law would have a single payer system makes sense only in a world where "Obama is the most uncompromising president in American history' . Let's look at some of these: Bush tax cuts: How is this a cave? Democrats got what they wanted by letting the Bush tax cuts expire and then reinstituting tax cuts for the lower brackets.
They should have expired.
National Security State: This isn't exactly a democrats vs republican issue.
Yea. It actually is. I know that for someone who thinks Obama is the most partisan president in American history its hard to imagine but it is
"Grand Bargain": I don't even know where to begin with this. First, there was no deal, so by definition, that means that there was no caving.
The fact that a deal was discussed was the concession. It was yet another Obama own goal by validating the Republicans positions that were completely unhinged from reality in 2010
And you are crazy if you think that Medicare and Social Security don't need fixing. Sure, they're not going bankrupt "tomorrow," but the writing is on the wall. Fixing now will be cheaper than delaying.
This is wrong. 'Fixing' them now the way Republicans wanted to 'fix' them by abolishing them would have prolonged the recession. Of course since in 2010 that was the singular goal, to maximize unemployment so that Mitt Romney could win.
Defense Budget: Democrats have been fairly committed to fighting the war on terror and wrapping up Afghanistan. You can't do that without a military. This isn't strictly a republican vs democrat issue.
You dont need an 800 billion dollar defense budget to drop drone strikes. You need it because if you start cutting it you are UNPATRIOTIC MUSLIM TRAITOR which is what Obama has been slimed with in right wing press
Obamacare: It takes some truly impressive intellectual dishonesty to call Obamacare a cave to republicans. Let me repeat: It was passed without a single republican vote. The inescapable truth about Obamacare is that it was the most that democrats could pass within their own party, and only after some serious arm-twisting. To the extent that democrats "caved," they caved to themselves.
This is the most dishonest interpretation of how Obamacare turned from a national option to a romneycare option I've ever read, and I try to read the national review and politico just to make sure I dont fall in a trap you obviously fell a while ago. Anyway, I am glad guys like you are around, otherwise I'd be worried the Republicans had a chance of winning the Senate or the White House. Keep tripling down on that ideological purity, keep pursuing policies rejected by majorities of Americans.
|
On October 09 2013 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check.
This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns
Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. These false narratives don't help. Democrats are open to IMPROVING the ACA but Republicans want nothing less than to dismantle it in whatever way they can. Also, they have been more than willing to take Republican input through the whole process, thats the only reason it is the law it is. If it had been up to Democrats to get what they wanted it would look radically different. What is happening is that Republicans are holding the country hostage unless their demands to undermine and dismantle the ACA are met. If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding. Yeah, OK, Dems are open to changing the ACA however they want. That's obviously not the point I was making. They aren't willing to change the ACA in a way that Reps are asking for.
The way the Reps are asking for is to defund the entire law or face default. So yes, how totally unfair the Democrats are being.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is.
What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA?
He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing.
Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K.
Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI.
|
On October 09 2013 07:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 07:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns
Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. These false narratives don't help. Democrats are open to IMPROVING the ACA but Republicans want nothing less than to dismantle it in whatever way they can. Also, they have been more than willing to take Republican input through the whole process, thats the only reason it is the law it is. If it had been up to Democrats to get what they wanted it would look radically different. What is happening is that Republicans are holding the country hostage unless their demands to undermine and dismantle the ACA are met. If they want to work on the ACA pass a CR (or at least put it to a vote, unless you are too cowardly Mr. Boehner) then legitimate discussions can be had but Obama refuses to set this precident and I for one am impressed to finally see some Democrats playing hardball. It has totally flustered the Republicans because they are so used to Dems folding. Yeah, OK, Dems are open to changing the ACA however they want. That's obviously not the point I was making. They aren't willing to change the ACA in a way that Reps are asking for. The way the Reps are asking for is to defund the entire law or face default. So yes, how totally unfair the Democrats are being.
That's not true. They offered to just delay the individual mandate for one year.
Edit: to your other post, Dems didn't want the Bush tax cuts to expire completely, Reps cut the defense budget with the sequester and Reps do not want to abolish medicare and social security.
|
On October 09 2013 07:45 Sub40APM wrote:
This is the most dishonest interpretation of how Obamacare turned from a national option to a romneycare option I've ever read, and I try to read the national review and politico just to make sure I dont fall in a trap you obviously fell a while ago. Anyway, I am glad guys like you are around, otherwise I'd be worried the Republicans had a chance of winning the Senate or the White House. Keep tripling down on that ideological purity, keep pursuing policies rejected by majorities of Americans.
Let me repeat again: The democrats passed Obamacare without a single republican vote.
Let's play a game called "stupid or liar" (courtesy of Adam Carrolla). Democrats like to say that they "caved" to republicans on Obamacare. Are they stupid or are they lying? It is indisputable that democrats could have passed any law they wanted so long as basically all democrat legislators agreed on it. With that in mind, why did Democrats pass something that mirrors Romneycare? Are they truly that stupid to pass a law that they don't really want? Or are they lying about what really happened, and the truth is that moderate democrats wouldn't tolerate passing a more radical overhaul of the healthcare system?
Seems pretty obvious to me.
EDIT: By the way, I like how you totally dodged my ultimate point about your real problem being that liberal democrats caved to moderate democrats. The democrat party isn't exactly a monolithic entity any more than the republican party is.
|
On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI.
That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
